The Heavy Hand

The heavy hand of the IRS seizes innocent Americans’ assets

Flint, Mich.Earnest moralists lament Americans’ distrust of government. What really is regrettable is that government does much to earn distrust, as Terry Dehko, 70, and his daughter Sandy Thomas, 41, understand.

George Will

Terry, who came to Michigan from Iraq in 1970, soon did what immigrants often do: He went into business, buying Schott’s Supermarket in Fraser, Mich., where he still works six days a week. The Internal Revenue Service, a tentacle of a government that spent $3.5 trillion in 2013, tried to steal more than $35,000 from Terry and Sandy that year.Sandy, a mother of four, has a master’s degree in urban planning but has worked in the store off and on since she was 12. She remembers, “They just walked into the store” and announced that they had emptied the store’s bank account. The IRS agents believed, or pretended to believe, that Terry and Sandy were or conceivably could be — which is sufficient for the IRS — conducting a criminal enterprise when not selling groceries.



  1. SOP of all criminal gangs

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    Does anyone trust the Feds any more?

  3. plainlyspoken says:


    • gmanfortruth says:

      Hows the healing process going Plainly? Slow here, but still going, LOL 🙂

  4. Just A Citizen says:

  5. gmanfortruth says:
  6. Just A Citizen says:

    A case which highlights the problem with trying to use the Courts to hold Govt. Officials accountable. And which fits the theme of the day, Govt ABUSE of POWER.

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    I heard a live interview with this Plumlee guy. Huge whistleblower in action.

    This guy has laid it all out, running guns and missiles to Al Qaeda on C-130’s.

  8. Just A Citizen says:
    • The only way to stop it is as I said… them at the gate.

      • Also remember, that malicious prosecution can be interpreted in a variety of ways….up to and including abuse of power. In addition, government employees are not shielded from malicious prosecution in civil cases.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Good morning Sir. Have been following the trail of your BLM problem. Seems to me that you may have been misled by some overzealous Politicians as to what is actually going on here.

        The BLM may be in fact claiming land that private citizens have title to and pay taxes for. But the FEDS claim they have owned that land all along. The BLM has in fact notified the public of its intentions to develop a management plan for those lands, and others in the three state area. That is if the following Notice of Intent is the one relative to this dispute.

        It does not appear that “Navigable Rivers” has anything to do with this dispute. Unless of course the Fed claim is that their land has been moved from the river channel and is now high and dry.

        I am not downplaying this nor siding with the BLM. Just pointing out that there seems to be much more to the story that has not been told. Such as what the law suit was that the Rancher lost, and which the BLM is claiming established some precedent.

        • No…we are very aware of the suit…..and the claim of the BLM….however, it it the position of the State of Texas and that of the land owners and Oklahoma….that the agreement between Okla and Texas……supercedes the BLM since it was ratified by Congress and, therefore, over rides the BLM. We are aware that this goes back to 1899….the intent to prepare a resource management program is a smoke screen we feel,,,,because we are talking about private land and not federal land nor public land.

          The navigable water comes into play because of the changing river banks……in one area a full quarter mile from where it was three years ago..

          • But I know you are not taking their side……it is definitely an over reach because after Congress ratified the agreement between Oklahoma and Texas which ceded the land as PRIVATE…..the BLM did not offer a friend of court brief nor did it protest or file anything form of a protest after it was publicly posted, hearings held, jurisdictional lines drawn and agreed to with the ever changing river banks……AND until OBAMA… has never even been a forethought.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              OK, more research done. Boy you Texicans just can’t stand to sit on a border for long can you. Of course Oklahoma doesn’t seem much better.

              So, as I read it the BLM’s claim is over the supposed Federal Ownership of that portion of the Red River, including the bed that is located between the middle line and the south bank, or vegetation line.

              Cleary, the Fed Ownership was the River itself under the 1923 SCOTUS ruling. Which also required concrete survey markers be located to FIX the boundary. I can’t find what happened to that line or why it is later ignored in the 2000 Compact fixing the border between Oklahoma and Texas as the “vegetation” line along the southern bank.

              Seems to me the 2000 compact adopted by Congress clearly ELIMINATED the Federal Ownership or Stewardship unless there was an exclusion included in the language.

              Either way, it looks like the BLM can argue with Oklahoma but has NO CLAIM in Texas. That is the Texas defined as those lands SOUTH of the vegetation line of the South Bank.

              I find the Oklahoma argument that the line can move in only one direction to be very Dishonest and less than Honorable. But, consistent with your history.

              Given what I now know, it seems the BLM’s only “legitimate” claim to Texas is those lands which are now south of the river but were in or north of the River at the time of the 2000 agreement.

              One more question. The BLM Notice of Intent references a PRIOR Land Management Plan for the same lands included in the NOI but under separate plans. Were any of the lands in question included as “BLM” or “public” lands in any of those prior Land Management Plans??

              Might want to have someone look into that. If not that shows clearly that the BLM’s claim is a RECENT construction. It also shows their NOI is “misleading” and you might be able to force them to do it over.

              By the way, a MAP is a required part of the NOI and that should also contain “ownership” according to their “current claims”.

              And of course, one smart ass comment regarding how only Texicans and Okies would use a muddy ditch running through sand to define a legal boundary between their States. Good grief. Thank goodness our rivers are embedded in “bed rock”. We won’t have this problem until the next Ice Age.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              For those following along in this discussion, here is a copy of the Act of Congress in 2000 ratifying the Red River Boundary Compact. Please note that the only “caveats” are regarding lands within Indian Reservations, or Allotment lands held in trust, or land claimed by the Indians in their original boundaries. Which is all in Oklahoma as I read prior Acts of Congress.


  9. gmanfortruth says:
  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Now take the information provided in the youtube I provided above and combine it with the Daily Kos reaction to a Select Committee investigation on Benghazi. Notice the connections in the methodology of the ridicule?

    Notice how not the author nor any of the commenters address the reason Boehner is finally considering the Select Committee. That is that State and the White House did NOT release the memo to Congress under the subpoena for said documents. It only came to light when a Judge ordered its release under FOIA to Judicial Watch.

    Failure to produce the documents or any others was a violation of law and displays the arrogance this White House holds for Congress.

    But what the hell, lets make fun of Tea Party people and blame them instead.

    • Read something else yesterday about a department (state ?) releasing a statement, but some media sources came out with the same talking points before they went public, as if it were orchestrated…
      and from American Thinker
      May 2, 2014

      CBS struggling with the appearance of conflict of interest with Rhodes Bros

      Thomas Lifson

      CBS News has a serious credibility problem with an obvious solution it refuses to take. With a president named David Rhodes who is the brother of the man at the center of a firestorm over the Obama administration’s Benghazi cover-up, Ben Rhodes, the news operation is under suspicion of downplaying the story. It doesn’t help that its former correspondent Sharyl Attkisson left the network over its failure to support her investigative reporting into Benghazigate.

      Now, CBS News has been forced to formally deny that its president played a role in its lack of coverage. Michael Calderone of the Huffpo reports:

      CBS News President David Rhodes was not involved in editorial discussions on Wednesday about whether “CBS Evening News” should cover a newly released email written by his brother Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser, according to a network spokesperson. (snip)

      While “CBS This Morning” reported on the email Wednesday morning, the evening newscast did not — a decision that caught the attention of the Washington Free Beacon. The website pointed out the Rhodes connection on Wednesday, and the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, followed up Thursday with a piece titled: “Two Brothers at Center of Benghazi Controversy: One Runs CBS News, the Other Is Obama’s Adviser.”

      “White House Correspondent Bill Plante reported the story on ‘CBS This Morning,’ with a disclaimer about the relationship, as well as CBS News Radio,” a CBS News spokeswoman told HuffPost. “There also was a thorough editorial discussion about it at ‘CBS Evening News’ and David Rhodes was not involved.”

      The Rhodes brothers angle only adds to suggestions this week that CBS News hasn’t been aggressive enough when it comes to Benghazi.

      The current denial is far from convincing. CBS’s neglect of the story is longstanding, and I doubt there is a single person in the editorial staff who does not already understand the blood ties and the editorial orientation at issue.

      There is a clear appearance of a conflict of interest, no matter how much the network may protest. The solution is obvious: go after the story. If the network does not, then fair or not, the appearance will stand. David Rhodes should issue and make public a memo instructing his staff to ignore the fact of his blood tie, and go after the story.

      • Dude!That was like two years ago!

        And then there’s Beckel: WHO CARES? Who cares if they covered it up? It’s politics, all administrations do it.

        Go Trey Gowdy!

        • Will be interesting to watch, either the networks eat some crow & start covering or they will continue to bleed viewers/revenue. Imagine FOX with 20 million viewers using them as their primary news source.

          • Matt Lockwood says:

            What would be more interesting was FOX actually having news instead of spun propaganda.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      At last check, aiding the enemy is high treason, aiding a terrorist organization is against the law and we all knew this long ago, yet, no charges of treason, no arrests, nothing. Shameful! Just one more piece of the disgrace our Federal Government has become. They need removed, completely. How people continue to be silent is equally disgraceful.

  11. Sedgewick says:

    Sean Hannity and Dallas First Baptist Church Pastor; Robert Jefress

    [audio src="" /]

    The first thing the good pastor does is equate social degradation and turpitude with an absence of Christian values. By order of reason, this implies non-Christians as morally and/or socially inferior.

    Next comes using the above as a justification to teach Christianity in public schools.

    Then Mr Jefress accuses liberals of ‘perverting’ the first amendment, before he turns around and does exactly that by presenting a straw-man argument in using the word “establish” as a verb/action rather than as a noun(establishment) as stated in the first amendment to describe a religious organization.

    Then he uses Thomas Jefferson to argue why it is okay for government to ‘support’ “Christian worship”.

    Mr. Hannity makes a point about how secularism will eventually prevail over time, then suggests that Pastor Jeffries is trying to fight it with his political involvement. The good Pastor agrees and then goes on to further criticize what he calls ‘perversion’ of the first amendment and suggests it needs rescue.

    He then describes intention to muster support of tens of millions of Christians to vote based upon Christian morals/values rather than political idealism, ..followed by a declaration that America was founded as a “Chrisian Nation”

    If anyone has been paying attention to the good pastor, you can notice he has been actively participating in conservative media promoting Christ-ocracy, as well as promoting intolerance by criticizing other religions and lifestyles.

    Pastor Jefress’s entire stated position and supporting arguments are in favor of seperatist theocratic rule in the USA. Mr. Jefress believes his idea of god is definitive and trumps all, and is therefore righteous and justifies imposing religious rule.

    You cannot talk him out of this. There are many like him.

    …I will start with ‘god’ given unalienable rights.

    The popular or perhaps universally accepted definition of god includes the creation of the universe. We recognize and/or define god as the first cause, origin or beginning.

    Whether you define god as an intelligent entity or something akin to natural causation, you recognize that we are human beings with our own unique nature. Humans naturally exhibit behavioral and/or thought patterns that define us as a species, that allow us to live free happy and peacefully with others. This is one simple definition of natural rights.

    They are ours from birth by order of our nature and cannot be given nor taken, hence unalienable.

    The US Constitution; Bill of Rights, was premised upon recognition of natural rights in that it was intended to not only limit government from violating these rights, but to actually protect them as an inherent part of the legal framework.

    One of these rights is an individual’s ownership of their own thoughts ideas and philosophy, to be able to think freely, share and express such ideas with others. The first amendment was intended as a means of preventing US CONGRESS from interfering with such rights as well as promote an atmosphere of civic participation.

    ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”

    “…law respecting an establishment of religion,” means a law which favors/advocates a particular belief. It recognizes natural and righteous individual free thought that varies, and that any law in favor of one belief is an inherent violation of rights of anyone who does not share said belief.

    “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” is in recognition of the same basic idea of individual free thought, and further clarifies that legally preventing someone from living according to their philosophy or idea of god, is also a violation thereof.

    In simple terms, this means that the USA is NOT a “Christian Nation”, and that theocracy is in direct contradiction to national values.

    Furthermore, The tradition of religious freedom in the USA is an idea that stems from Christian pilgrims settling in Plymouth, escaping from religious persecution in Europe. If you want to argue the concepts of a Christian nation, I recommend starting with Plymouth Rock.

    The whole idea is that you can live n the USA and decide what to believe as an individual, express and live that belief, and not only without the worry of government bossing you around, but to instead have the security that your rights are protected from others who may impose upon you.

    Public education is a government institution where everyone is given the civic benefit of a basic education. If teachers preach Christianity or teach christian values in public school as standard curriculum, it is legally prescribing indoctrination, respecting an establishment of religion.

    Depending on the state constitution, this may or may not be prohibited. Regardless of location, if law is prescribing religious doctrine it is violating the freedom from religion.

    — —————— – ———– —— —— ——

    The Texas Constitution states the following:

    Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

    Sec. 5. WITNESSES NOT DISQUALIFIED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS. No person shall be disqualified to give evidence in any of the Courts of this State on account of his religious opinions, or for the want of any religious belief, but all oaths or affirmations shall be administered in the mode most binding upon the conscience, and shall be taken subject to the pains and penalties of perjury.

    Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

    Sec. 7. APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES. No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes.

    — —————— – ———– —— —— ——

    Texas law appears to support my point to work in favor of religious freedom. …Looks like Texas isn’t a ‘Christian’ State.

    Additionally, ….

    It is my understanding that Pastor Jeffress is well versed and educated in the realm of biblical theology. I am curious as to the scriptural basis that gives instruction of fear hate and/or intolerance, or violating rights.

    And what does the bible suggest as a means of handling a frustrated Jewish or Muslim family who’s children are being told at school that they must accept Jesus as their lord and savior?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      And far too many people think that the “freedom” clause means “freedom from”. That is the farthest thing from reality. I think schools should limit it’s teachings to the different religions so kids understand the differences in each. That would help with religious tolerance. Overall, I have no problem with being around different religious sayings, statues etc. That’s all part of being free. People bitching because the Ten Commandments are on a Courthouse lawn are intolerant, I have no respect for them.

      I will however argue that this nation was founded on Christian principles and history supports that. Today……not sure what this nation is.

      • Sedgewick says:

        ” And far too many people think that the “freedom” clause means “freedom from”. That is the farthest thing from reality. ”

        I disagree.

        What you are looking at as either/or, I see as using both to define/draw the line. Freedom FROM religion IS freedom OF religion… meaning that legally protected freedom from being subject to religious rule is a restriction that protects and enables freedom OF religion.

        ” I think schools should limit it’s teachings to the different religions so kids understand the differences in each. That would help with religious tolerance. ”


        If in social studies class, there is a subject that requires defining and/or discussing different religions, and it is not done in a way that favors or preaches one of them exclusively, then all you are really doing is broadening a child’s perspective in how the world operates.

        But that is different than what is being advocated by the good pastor.

        ” Overall, I have no problem with being around different religious sayings, statues etc. That’s all part of being free. ”

        Agreed. If we are to expect our freedoms be respected, we must respect others’ freedoms as well.

        ” People bitching because the Ten Commandments are on a Courthouse lawn are intolerant, I have no respect for them. ”

        I am not sure the monuments are the issue, but rather what they represent. There is a popular idea in the USA that it is a Christian nation which seems to include intolerance of others. A good example is the man in Oklahoma that refused the petition of Satanists on the grounds that he thinks their beliefs are illegitimate.

        When you put the ten commandments in front of the courthouse, symbolically, you are proclaiming representation of christian ideas in law. When you exclude others from the same proclamation, you are proclaiming exclusive representation of christian ideas in law.

        Personally, I don’t care about monuments, but I think that kind of thing is best suited as celebrated on church property or in parks or public squares, but not legal institutions. In Oklahoma, even that is prohibited.

        Oklahoma State Constitution: Section II-5: Public money or property – Use for sectarian purposes.

        No public money or property shall ever be appropriated,
        applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use,
        benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system
        of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest,
        preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or
        sectarian institution as such.

        But it goes deeper than that, Gman. There is an elitist attitude at work that is being taught in churches and, that I will argue, is not working as intended in scripture.

        From a Christian perspective, non-Christians are lost souls on the highway to hell. This is where the drive originates to preach the word and convince others to accept Jesus, to be saved from hell. If you refuse, you are often written off as a lost cause.

        The intent is all good, but it often leads to a devaluing of those who do not agree.

        On several occasions, I have questioned Christians in regard to the idea that no one can come to God accept through accepting Jesus as the son of god and savior who died for our sins. I pose the question of what happens to an innocent child living in another culture who has never had an opportunity to understand anything about Christianity, that dies of starvation or disease. What is their eternal fate?

        The answers I get are most interesting and usually amount to a group of people rationalizing how god is just in condemning the soul of an innocent child to eternal hell-fire and damnation. When I ask for scripture to support this notion, it is usually a collection of verses abut how to live a righteous life but never actually supports the idea that non-Christian children go to hell.

        Some would rather rationalize the devaluing of another than to question what they have been taught by people who start with a bible verse and end with an idea of fear or bigotry. There is a right to believe and express such ideas. The consequence is the rejection of the rights of another as being of lesser importance.

        Mix that sentiment with law, and voilà …it is argued someone should be denied their place…

        ‘So what if they want a monument, they’re just Satanists’
        ‘So what if they want to get married, they’re abominations’
        ‘So what if they want to build a Mosque, they’re not saved, hell-bound’

        ” I will however argue that this nation was founded on Christian principles and history supports that. ”

        And I will argue that it was indeed NOT founded on Christian principles, but rather of classical liberal and libertarian values and principles, recognition and respect for unalienable rights.

        The USA was founded by many Christians with regard and respect to natural law, which works in concert with many Christian ideas. But it is legally protected from being a “Christian Nation”.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Your playing semantics with the term “Christian Nation”.

          This Nation was most certainly founded on Christian principles. More accurately it was a combination of Enlightenment and PROTESTANT Christian Principles. Which included the concept of “inalienable Rigths”. However, by Nation I do not mean the Constitution nor the Federal Govt created by it. I mean the Nation as a whole and its various parts.

          To claim anything else simple IGNORES our history and the beliefs of those who settled here, and then fought to establish a new Nation.

          The USA was and remains, by common law, a Christian Nation, yet by “govt” law it is not a Christian Nation.

          Again, the First Amendment prohibition on recognizing the establishment of religion is a restriction ONLY on Congress. It did not apply to the STATES. SCOTUS be damned on that issue, among others.

          This does not support this preacher man who wants to impose his religious beliefs upon others. It simply states more accurately our history and the meaning of these restrictions.

          Now address the issue, and fact, than many “Christian” principles are shared among other peoples of the world and are inherent to American Culture.

          Are we to BAN the teaching of these principles just because you or others find them in Christian doctrine as well?

          Does killing become OK or teaching it to be wrong is wrong itself, because the Christians include it among there commandments??

          And as far as the attacks on monuments by atheist groups, it most certainly is about the monument. Those raising hell over these icons simply want all evidence of Christian banned from public property and discourse. I find their behavior childish and obnoxious as it is nothing more than the very thing they oppose. The State forced recognition of THEIR belief system.

          • Sedgewick says:

            You’re the one playing semantics…and rationalizing to suite your position.

            You’re using a predominantly Christian population to call it a Christian nation. You are confusing “Nation of Christians” with “Christian Nation”.

            “Christian Nation”, because it is using a term naming a religion as an adjective to describe a term for governance, it implies a theocracy, which is clearly prohibited by US law.

            The first amendment indeed is limited to congress, and begs the position of state law to be considered per 10th amendment, and is a legal argument that I am consistently defining. (Let’s do.)

            ” Are we to BAN the teaching of these principles just because you or others find them in Christian doctrine as well? ”

            Does killing become OK or teaching it to be wrong is wrong itself, because the Christians include it among there commandments?? ”

            Where did I make this argument or suggest or imply as such? If the principles are solid, they will stand on their own irrespective of any religion.

            ” And as far as the attacks on monuments by atheist groups, it most certainly is about the monument. Those raising hell over these icons simply want all evidence of Christian banned from public property and discourse. ”


            It is not only backlash, but also a means to demonstrate the influence and intolerance and of those who think the US is a “Christian Nation”.

            If the ten commandments monuments were about celebrating religious freedom they would be at the churches and their properties. If it were about celebrating a Christian community, they would be in the parks and public squares. But it is at the courthouses to proclaim the influence of Christianity on to law.

            It is only a fancy rock sitting in front of a building, or maybe a symbol of religious expression, …until a situation comes up where the idea of a “Christian Nation” is threatened or a dilemma between faiths occurs within the legal system. It then becomes a symbol of solidarity and superiority in a “Christian Nation”.

            What happened in Oklahoma is a clear cut example. The Satanists were originally denied their petition for a statue, on the grounds of Satanism being an illegitimate belief in comparison to Christianity.

            Those rocks often symbolize the Christian ‘good old boy’ networks that operate in spite of law. The above video of candidates in Iowa stating their support for only religious judges and in spite of the Iowa Constitution clearly prohibiting it, is a good example of how it comes to be.

            • Sedgewick says:

              ” The above video …”

              Correction: The video below


            • Just A Citizen says:


              No, it is you and your ilk who play the semantics game.

              Try telling any other country with a dominant religion that they are not a xyz Nation but a Nation of xyz and see how they laugh at you.

              I explained the difference and you ignored it in order to take stabs at me. The term has no meaning other than a nation dominated by the Christian faith. Unless you attach some other adjective or descriptor to the sentence. Such as Legally Sanction or Legally Decreed or BY LAW.

              You either are falling for the rhetorical trap created by the Progressives or you are part of the game. The phrase Christian Nation has never been used in my lifetime to denote a “theocracy” in this country. However the left attacks the phrase all the time, creating a difference by claiming NO, NO, we are a Nation of Christians. Sorry Sir but there is not difference in meaning between the two. Not in reality. Only in the mind of those who can’t handle the truth.

              You show little understanding of the Founding of this Nation. It is not the “Libertarian” dream you think it was. To a large extent that is why the country got off the chosen path so quickly. Lack of a solid philosophical foundation etched in stone.

              You want it to move that direction then fine. I will help to some extent.

              But make no mistake what this nations was at its founding or the influence of Protestant values on our founding laws.

              As for your attack on monuments, it pretty much makes my case. You find offense, affront and FORCE in a piece of stone that can do NOTHING to you. Because it reminds you that your view of our history is BULLSHIT in itself, in my view. As you say, it acts as a reminder that we were and are still a Christian Nation. Why so many find that so bothersome baffles me.

              What we are and the extent Christian principles informed our laws is irrelevant for the most part. The issue is the appropriateness and just nature of those laws. Not their origin. You claim pretty much the same but can’t seem to handle the fact those “just” laws were created by Christians who were leaning heavily on their faith and principles.

              If all you claim were true there would have NEVER been any STATE Churches established in this Nation. And if so NONE would have survived the formation of the Constitution. Yet the Bill of Rights was fashioned after those of the States. Some of which ALREADY had STATE Churches.

              So your perception of our founding is seriously flawed. The move away from Govt sanction of A religion or ANY religion was not “established” as a matter of Public Policy at that time.

              • Sedgewick says:

                I have no ilk. I stand alone in my convictions. And I’m not here to win a popularity contest.

                If it were a Christian Nation instead of a nation of Christians, I would be unable to find so many laws in favor of freedom of/from religion. I, instead, would find provisions for laws made in exclusive favor of Christianity.

                Semantics give way to reason and fact. The USA is a nation of Christians abiding by laws that were founded and developed from a philosophy of freedom and natural rights. It isn’t that my position denies the influence of Christians, but rather that it promotes the tradition of the USA not being exclusive to Christianity.

                ” As for your attack on monuments, it pretty much makes my case. You find offense,…”

                No I do not. I rather like the Ten Commandments, as well as the ideas behind Baphomet being an ancient symbol representing spiritual balance. I agree with both.

                ” …affront and FORCE in a piece of stone that can do NOTHING to you. Because it reminds you that your view of our history is BULLSHIT in itself, in my view. As you say, it acts as a reminder that we were and are still a Christian Nation. Why so many find that so bothersome baffles me. ”

                Okay, I will explain it to you.

                There are a lot of people who use the same reasoning as you. They tell themselves and each other that the USA is a CHRISTIAN NATION built BY CHRISTIANS, FOR CHRISTIANS, and on CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES. They proudly proclaim as such and use it as a justification to further build exclusively in the name of Jesus.

                When it comes time to respect the rights of others, this reasoning is often used to dismiss, degrade and/or dehumanize. Alternative marriage, Muslims building a mosque, or Satanists trying to erect a statue be damned in “our” ‘Christian Nation’.

                These ideas are reinforced by propaganda and preachers everywhere politicizing religion, teaching fear hate and bigotry instead of what is actually in The Bible.

                Abuse of religion is what offends me. Not a statue.

                The Bible tells us to love our neighbors AND enemies and to exhibit patience and tolerance, to be charitable and forgiving. It tells us not to look down upon others, but rather to use our judgement to discern the difference between righteousness, good and evil. It is full of lessons that tell us how to live a righteous life and how to attain a better physical and spiritual well being.

                It tells us that it is not so much about Jesus but the spirit of truth, the spirit of god as taught by Jesus’ ministry. It tells us that if we are to become one with god, we have have to accept the Christ spirit/consciousness as instructed by Jesus.

                What it DOESN’T tell us is to politicize religion for purposes of fear and hate.

                …which is exactly what is happening on a mass scale. There are Christians everywhere who, for sake of all the lies, fear, hate as instructed by propaganda and various ministries, are being worked up into a radicalized xenophobic frenzy.

                This makes for a particularly volatile situation when considering the modern current political and economic circumstances, as well as the fact that, over the last few decades, discoveries have/are being made that call into question the entire foundation and legitimacy of Christianity as popularly interpreted. Combine this knowledge with what is being kept and you have a recipe for disaster.

                Want to argue in favor of a Christian Nation? Do so in court. It won’t stand. What it will do is open a great big can of worms.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                The SCOTUS just destroyed the separation of Church and State ideology. Might want to check your last paragraph. 🙂

              • Sedgewick says:

                Do you have a link, Gman?

              • gmanfortruth says:
              • Sedgewick says:

                Here is another article regarding the same.


                There is nothing wrong with openly expressing your faith. The line is crossed when faith encroaches, prohibits, or prevents another from exercising or expressing their faith or demands compliance or worship of a faith. The ruling, from what I can see, is more about not limiting free exercise and expression.

                I can also see the wisdom in Justice Kagen’s remarks and position. She makes an excellent point with regard to inclusion and shared ownership of and/or participation in governance.

                This is why I posit that faith should be kept outside of government institutions.

                What happens if/when people of other faiths demand equal opportunity to also have their prayers before the counsel meetings? Would it be welcome in a ‘Christian Nation’?

  12. Sedgewick says:

    Iowa State Constitution;

    Religion. Section 3. The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the maintenance of any minister, or ministry.

    Religious test-witnesses. Section 4. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office, or public trust, and no person shall be deprived of any of his rights, privileges, or capacities, or disqualified from the performance of any of his public or private duties, or rendered incompetent to give evidence in any court of law or equity, in consequence of his opinions on the subject of religion; and any party to any judicial proceeding shall have the right to use as a witness, or take the testimony of, any other person not qualified on account of interest, who may be cognizant of any fact material to the case; and parties to suits may be witnesses, as provided by law.

  13. @ Sedgewick……………..ok….here is what you should do.First, go out into your yard and find a tree…if you have no yard and live in a concrete jungle, go out and find a wall. Now, start talking and see if you can convince either of religious freedom or tolerance or intolerance, etc. You gave the example of a Southern Baptist Preacher. You will make more headway talking to a tree or wall than a “convicted” Southern Baptist preacher in Texas. Even the Pentecostal don’t fight with them.

    You quoted the Texas Constitution…and it promotes religious freedom and it exercises no control over any religion anywhere. In addition, you will find that no monies from the general revenue funds or any fund is appropriated for religious functions. You will also note that no tax money is appropriated for any religious function. Yet, Texas is, by the left, considered a religious state. It is a free state inhabited by all sorts of religions including Indians…..and all are supported, in theory, by the state.

    Additionally, in the public schools, in Texas, there is no teaching of Christianity any different than there is a teaching of any religion. Now, there are plenty of Christian private schools based on the theory of Christian doctrine. THEY are private and, therefore, can teach anything that they want and no one has a say except the school and the board of directors,

    Texas has its share of religious zealots and “convicted” religious icons but the base root of Texas is freedom of religion and it is getting more so and more so. But, you take a look at the Texas legislature…..there ain’t no preachers.

    You will find that Texans believe in spirituality and that comes from Indian lore. Religion is in the eye of the beholder and spirituality is individual.

  14. Just A Citizen says:


    The Root of Marriage Laws…………………..English common law derived from CHRISTIAN teaching.

    The ban on polygamy originated in English Common Law. In England polygamy was repudiated because it deviated from Christian norms; marriage, it was believed, properly existed only between one man and one woman. In 1866, for example, in the seminal case of Hyde v. Hyde, 1 L.R.-P. & D., an English court remarked that “the law of [England was] … adapted to the Christian marriage, and it is wholly inapplicable to polygamy.” During the nineteenth century, English and U.S. law did not recognize polygamous marriage in any form. Only in the late twentieth century has either nation given limited legal recognition to polygamous partners from other countries.

    Anti-polygamy laws in the United States also sprang from religious conflict. In the mid-1800s, widespread public hostility arose toward the practice of polygamy by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known as Mormons. A small religious sect in the territory of Utah, the Mormons believed that their founder and prophet, Joseph Smith, had a divine revelation in 1843 that called for men to marry more than one woman; in 1852 the church announced that the practice was religiously superior to monogamy. This position angered critics throughout the country, ranging from religious leaders to novelists, editorialists, and particularly politicians. In 1856 the Republican party’s first national platform denounced polygamy and Slavery as “those twin relics of barbarism.”

  15. Sedgewick

    “Pastor Jefress’s entire stated position and supporting arguments are in favor of seperatist theocratic rule in the USA. Mr. Jefress believes his idea of god is definitive and trumps all, and is therefore righteous and justifies imposing religious rule.

    You cannot talk him out of this. There are many like him.”

    Yes, OK, I agree. Might explain why I have had discussions with a S. Baptist preacher friend on why I don’t like S. Baptist churches. Funny thing, he agreed. He explained each S.B. minister/church decide their theology/beliefs.

    How is this different from say, Nancy Pelosi & her beliefs? Does she care what is legal, constitutional, etc. if she thinks it will remake America into her ideal of utopia. The big difference is she/Reid/Obama have the power to force such changes on us….

    I think landmarks that were improperly used to include scripture should be allowed as they are mostly ignored. It’s not the only mistake the founders made & the SCOTUS doesn’t seem overly influenced by the Ten Commandments. Moving foreword, don’t place on new, public property.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The Communist Takeover Of
      America – 45 Declared Goals
      15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
      16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
      22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
      24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press. 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.” 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.” 28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.” 29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

      It’s all part of the BS game being played. When enough people wake up, if that can even happen in this dumbed down country, it’ll be too late for a peaceful solution.

    • Sedgewick says:

      I once had a conversation with a nice assertive Christian lady. She shared testimony of an epiphany she had in her kitchen, whereby she received the spirit of God. From that point on, she reads the bible with a different understanding than she had her whole life before.

      She explained that she stopped going to church because she realized that most Christians are all about worshiping a man who lived 2000 years ago and have no clue what he meant. She went on to basically rip her fellow Christians for their hypocrisy and ignorance as related to the word of god.

      While I am only a student, I can see how her charge is quite valid.

      If they aren’t getting this stuff from the bible, then where is it coming from? The Churches and media, of course.

      Do you remember the video posted a few weeks ago about the mosque in TN? Pay attention to what those folks in TN are saying. The one man says “YOU’RE the ones whose lying(pointing at 2 Muslims), …it’s not a real religion.” The lady in the video expressed fear for being on Iranian TV.

      The part I thought was even more interesting is how she compared tolerance of Muslims with being put in the ‘back of the bus’. Somehow, she feels that living with Muslims is a violation of her freedom of religion. Odd.

      The Christians in that town harassed and vandalized those Muslims for no other reason than out of fear. They see them as a threat.

      They didn’t get that from the bible, nor did they get it from the Koran, because Muslims praise Jesus too. …only as a holy miracle man, not god. The two beliefs are actually somewhat compatible given the parallels.

      If those folks in TN would stick to their bible and ignore the nonsense being thrown at them, if they would tolerate the Muslims and reach out to them, they will probably learn something to help them live better lives and have a stronger community.

    • That must mean that Buck is Diabetes free…..I, therefore, must be on my death bed. I do not touch the stuff…do not even like the smell of brewing coffee. THAT makes me a minority….give me the goodies.

  16. gmanfortruth says:
  17. Interesting how the numbers game with Obamacare is played……Claimed…8 million signups…but the people that never had insurance to begin with number under one million. The numbers of 8 million include the people whose policies were cancelled under Obamacare and veterans who are losing VA and Tricare benefits. That number is over 5 million……oh……and the number of young people that need to be on it…less than 20%….all of this according to Obama’s own study.

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    Obama is so bad that Kenyans are now claiming he WAS born in the USA

    • gmanfortruth says:

      They are removing all “Kenya Home of Barrack Obama” signs from the borders and relatives are disowning him 😀

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    I can’t believe they have a name for this, but a great example of We the People stepping up to solve problems in a proactive way that makes it hard for bureaucrats to ignore.

  20. Screwed again! The SC has decided not to hear the case regarding the obstacles thrown up by NJ to prevent 99.999% of residents from obtaining a carry permit. Heller was a fluke it is so damn important to get more tradition oriented judges appointed. Hard to believe but I was told by my NYC cop friends that I could get a NYC carry based on work I had done with the police in the past but without a NJ, exactly what good would it have done me?


      Today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined without opinion to hear the appeal in Drake v. Jerejian — the federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s firearms carry laws. The case was brought in 2010 by ANJRPC and the Bellevue, Washington based Second Amendment Foundation.

      While there are several other right to carry challenges moving toward the U.S. Supreme Court from other parts of the country, today’s action is both troubling and disappointing. The Drake case was uniquely poised for the Supreme Court, not only because New Jersey’s carry law is one of the most extreme in the nation, but because there are now many conflicting decisions on right to carry in the lower courts throughout the country which can only be resolved by Supreme Court action. The high court usually takes cases that resolve lower court conflict.

      Given the lack of explanation from the Supreme Court, there will be much speculation about the significance of today’s action. ANJRPC will have additional analysis on this subject in the next issue of ANJRPC member magazine News & Briefs.

      The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs
      is the official NRA state affiliate in the Garden State

      • Carry them anyway.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Try JAC’s and Anita’s method, voting.

        • …because your way has worked so well.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Don’t know for sure. I do know that continuing to do the same thing over and over (voting) and expecting something different than what always happens is insane. We have a criminal corrupt Federal Government, do you agree?

            By the way, nice to hear from you, you have been quiet, hope all is well in your world and you and yours are healthy and happy! 🙂

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    @Sedg, You asked: “What happens if/when people of other faiths demand equal opportunity to also have their prayers before the counsel meetings? Would it be welcome in a ‘Christian Nation’?”

    I have no problem with having multiple prayers for different denominations and religions. I’m quite open minded to others beliefs and accept them for who they are. I do not find
    any symbols or monuments of other faiths as offensive in any way, I welcome them. I want to see the views and visions of all religions when I can. I’ve been to many places in the world where the different religions are part of their lives and I find it a great learning experience.

    Too deny the wishes/religions of others would not be very Christian like, unless they chose to act in discrimination. Then there are issues that historically don’t end well. This fact, mentioned by Black Flag, is undisputable.

    • Sedgewick says:

      I am very much in agreement with you.

      The reason I look like I am picking on Christians is because I am. It is my attempt to appeal to the Super Ego in hopes that I can promote self awareness and tolerance in a Christian Nation. That’s why I ask questions like the above.

      It also serves as a beta test of rationale. I am just trying to do the right thing before I go.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I don’t get offended by folks attacking Christianity. I think it’s a great eye opener to Christians as to what is going on a round them. I don’t think the attack is about religion, but more so politics, as I posted above under the Communism post. Faith, to me, is a personal thing. I don’t attend church for that reason.

        On to the subject of Separation of Church and State. I always thought that it was a false proclamation and NOT what the Constitution says. As usual, Judges tend to muddle matters more and more. We may be seeing some “taking turns” going on with SCOTUS as of late. Should be interesting to keep an eye on that. 🙂

  22. Just A Citizen says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      Kinda sad really. These are voters. They are not very smart voters.

  23. gmanfortruth says:

    This isn’t quite how our Government is supposed to work.

  24. gmanfortruth says:

    Sheriff Brown told the Covington News in an email, “If an officer cannot stop and investigate a person carrying a weapon on his or her person to establish whether they hold a valid weapon carrying license, then the very policy direction dictated by law makers to have such license boils down to a mute issue. Furthermore, the inability of officers to check licenses places them in a potential state of confusion, including concerns for personal and public safety when encountering an armed individual in the performance of one’s duty.”

    Now let’s replace gun license with driver’s license and ask the same question. Should police be able to stop you while driving JUST to check to see if you have a legal license? NO, is the correct answer, as that would be illegal. One must have made a moving violation or be legitimately suspected of a crime. The same should apply (violation of law or suspicion) for any license.

    • Sorry, G Man… and I are going to differ greatly on this and you know me to be a weapon carrying person. If I am in open carry, I would expect to be asked by a police officer if I have a license for that weapon. That would be my albatross for open carry. I do not see it the same as a driver’s license at all.

      The FAA does the same thing to pilots. They do not need a reasonable excuse to check your pilots license. You better have it with you if you are flying and the FAA does a ramp check. There are people out there perfectly capable of flying a plane….a natural if you will but I want them to be up to date on their physical, their eyesight, their ability to fly in bad weather and to be rated appropriately. It is for safety. I have all the above and I am free to fly anywhere I want to go. ( I would suggest not flying over nuke sites, they do get skittish ).

      You will find that most, if not all Texans, that carry do not mind having a license and do not mind being checked. However, we only have open carry for shotguns, long guns (rifles), and six shooters……not automatic handguns. I do not know why but we are trying to get open carry for handguns and I believe we will succeed this year.

      Now, this is where Texas does NOT have it right. I can carry a shotgun, rifle ( any caliber ), or strap on a six gun ( western style ) and I do not need a license. But I must have a license to carry concealed, So, the rub of it is……I can sling my AR 15 on my back and go anywhere and into anywhere (except posted areas) and be fine but need a license to carry concealed. Makes NO sense what so ever……but, as I said, we are changing that.

      I do support licensing and I do support having to carry the license. Down here, we have so many cartel issues and human trafficking issues, I want legal weapon owners. I do not want a system that says….there must be a weapons violation before law enforcement can check. So, I see it differently. If you take a responsibility to carry a weapon and to use a weapon, you should be in favor of keeping weapons out of the hands of those whom do not take personal responsibility, We are a gun totin’ state. We have a castle doctrine and stand your ground doctrine that extends beyond the home to your car, office, boat, or whatever. Everyone down here owns at least three weapons. My freedoms have not been usurped at all, in my mind because I am not forbidden to carry, to protect myself, to defend my family and/or others.

      I would think that a weapons trainer, as yourself, would agree with this…the ones that I know do. If I were a public owner of a restaurant, and we allowed open carry without licensing, I would post a no weapons policy at the door that said no weapons. If you choose not to eat there….ok with me. But if you want to bring a weapon in that is ok but….be licensed. I would even have a bouncer at the door checking weapons licensing just as I would checking drinking age.

      As a weapons trainer, did you not train people properly in handling weapons? Especially larger caliber weapons? What would be the difference? Is not requiring training usurping freedoms by your definition?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        We don’t differ too much at all, Colonel. We live in different worlds where dangers are equally different. WE don’t have much open carry at all, unless there is a protest or, most likely, a parade, it’s not at all common (except when hunting of course). In my lifetime, I have been checked by Game Wardens far more times than police (including driving issues). I don’t mind, because they are managing a resource that we all pretty much agree needs the management (poaching).

        Over time, I have posted several articles on how the licensing issue can be abused, all be it uncommon. I personally don’t mind being asked for my permit if it’s for good reason. But that is not real likely when carrying concealed, so I don’t concern myself with the issue. We also have similar laws as Texas (Castle, Stand your Ground).

        Training is always important, but I believe it’s a personal responsibility issue, not a government issue. I train anyone who asks, for free. I love working with kids too! Watching a kid become an accurate shooter and the happiness on their faces are precious moments indeed. For the most part, folks grow up with guns in these parts and are trained beginning at a very early age, much like you say things are in Texas. I would be Ok with local Sheriffs offering training for a fee, or (an idea you just helped happen) have a list of volunteers who will do it for free.

        Required training, such as hunter safety only began in Pa in the mid 80’s. No training is required for a CCP. There will always be accidents, no matter how much training is required. I saw it all, even from those who shot weapons quite often. I’m more concerned with my weapon and how I handle it. I don’t even think about what others do, unless I’m working with them.

        We’ve already had some crazy chats on CCP requirements, they exist and won’t change. As far as the Sheriff in the article, I think he was being overly fearful. It may come from where he lives and his dangers. Overall, I don’t think cops should just be able to ask for an ID for no other reason than they can (which in most places, they can’t without cause, per the 4th Amendment) . I don’t see it as a problem with a CCP, since it’s concealed to begin with.

        Strangely enough, I think bad guys can be picked out by smart people, including cops. I think there can be some argument for a reasonable search under these circumstances, just not sure what they should be.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          OH, we shared some of our winter weather with ya’ll this year, how about sending up some warmth this was 🙂

  25. JAC… will like this, The BLM has suddenly decided to not pursue the Red River issue and want it to die. The Attorney General and the Governor and the private land owners have said…..NOT SO FAST. Why, all of a sudden, do you not want to pursue it? So, Texas is demanding a cease and desist forever or they will not drop the issue and it is an election year for Wendy Davis and other democrats. We have it set in a very friendly Federal District Court here. Some have a conspiracy theory here that with water becoming such an issue that the Feds want to control private water rights….that ain’t gonna fly. Hell, we even have the EPA trying to require building permits for ranchers to dig private wells and/or dig earthen tanks to hold water to catch runoff for their cattle. That ain’t flying either.

    Getting interesting down here…..and it is becoming an election issue for governor. Wendy Davis supports state and federal control over private water rights.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      That is very interesting. Hope all is well in Texas. Ya’ll certainly do seem to be drawing the attention of the black flies these days.

      I hate to admit this but the latest version of the Clean Water Act which expanded the EPA power was Senator Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana.

      I was personally in the meeting where we tried to explain to him and his staff what the implications were to upstream land owners and federal land mgt agencies. They laughed us off, claiming us to be “conspiracy theorists”.

      There was a time in the West when Democrats understood their heritage and stood up for their citizens. This no longer seems to be true. For the most part they have become nothing but minions in the Progressive goal of Total Federal Control.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Like you JAC, I have been called a conspiracy theorist, only to have my theory to become fact. 🙂

%d bloggers like this: